Girl 10 dies from falling bullet on New Years Eve

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I have watched that and the guy appears well happy he can shoot some people (in the back) like the police guy says "no property is worth taking someones life".
He got off also...sad sad sad.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 



While your FACT is correct, your conclusions are not well thought out.

Here are the facts:

FACT -if it weren't for guns the little girl you reference in the OP wouldn't have been killed.
FACT -if it weren't for cars and alcohol there would be no drunk driving deaths.
FACT -if it weren't for planes there would be no deaths from plane crashes.
FACT -if it weren't for knives nobody would ever be stabbed to death.
FACT -if you weren't born you would never have to worry about dying.

And yes, you are 100% correct. As long as there are guns, cars, alcohol, knives, airplanes and people being born there will be tragic deaths.

But the goal in life is not to simply avoid risk and death. As the framers of the Constitution put it, we all have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Part of that pursuit is flying in airplanes, drinking beer, driving a car, and yes, owning weapons to protect ourselves against bad guys.

Where you're wrong is exemplified by the story about the mother who shot the intruder to protect her kids.


Who the # are you or anybody else o tell this woman she shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun to protect herself?

If you want to walk around, unable to defend your family, that's your choice. The desire to impose your choice on other people who do want to protect themselves... sorry, you lose. It's not going to happen.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Just an idea about home defence, why not use non lethal forms of defence? Tazers, pepper spray etc?
Just a though.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Your not suppose to shoot in the air at all, there is a law against it for a reason because # like this happens. If your going to shoot your gun on a celebration....shoot the ground.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Just an idea about home defence, why not use non lethal forms of defence? Tazers, pepper spray etc?
Just a though.


Because then gun lovers wouldnt have anything to cuddle to keep away the boogey men



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
Your not suppose to shoot in the air at all, there is a law against it for a reason because # like this happens. If your going to shoot your gun on a celebration....shoot the ground.


Or heres an idea

DONT SHOOT AT ALL!!!!!

I know, Im just crazy, please ignore me


Star for you for making me laugh
edit on 4/1/2013 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Why don't the gun companies invest more in non lethal methods of home defence?
If they brought out something that knocked out a human 100% of the time why not use that instead of a gun that could kill someone.
I think you are right Iknow, it is all about the power.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


My friend, when it comes to vehicle rights do you not know that collateral damage is entirely acceptable? I wonder if it would change anyones mind if it were their kid or that of a good friend.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
Your not suppose to shoot in the air at all, there is a law against it for a reason because # like this happens. If your going to shoot your gun on a celebration....shoot the ground.


Or heres an idea

DONT SHOOT AT ALL!!!!!

I know, Im just crazy, please ignore me


Star for you for making me laugh
edit on 4/1/2013 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)


Well you can't control people so might as well educate them.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   


I know conspiracies exist, I think theres one to get you all buying guns.
Removing guns would solve a big problem, kids shooting up schools!!
How many New Yorkers or even Texans are realistically in danger from any of those boogey men you mentioned? bugger all therefore they are no justification for wanting guns


So tell me, and I want a REAL answer, with all consequences thought out. How would removing guns keep kids from shooting up schools? How do you intend on actually removing the guns?

You people that want to ban everything crack me up. A ban is just a law. It will do NOTHING. Only people that follow laws will abide by it. So again, how does this really address the problem? What will stop the next Adam Lanza dead in his tracks, and make him say: wait a minute, I'm not allowed to do that. Let go of your emotional attachment to the issue. Seriously, calm down, take a deep breath, and think. How will this ban be actually effective. If this will actually guarantee that no one will EVER shoot up a school again, then why isn't this principle applied to every other issue in society. If it is the solution to the problem you seek, no just a feel good : "Yay, we did something! The ribbons on our car made it happen!", then start backing it up with facts. Show me how to implement it. You have the floor. Actually solve the problem. You might actually solve an even bigger issue: Crime.
I have a feeling you will come back empty handed. Because you can't solve the issue completely. It is impossible. And punishing the law abiding people will not change that. It will accomplish nothing.
i said this in another thread, and I'll say it again. we don't have a gun problem. We have a people problem. A mental health issue. We need to concentrate on solving the issues that make people do this, not making rules that make the sheeple "Feel Good".
edit on 4-1-2013 by rjohns1 because: The formatting for the quote was wrong.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rjohns1
 


The funny thing is Im not actually emotionally invested at all, I just cant stop myself from saying something when I see stupidity.

As for my solution, I posted it about halfway down on page 5 of this thread.
No ones commented to tell me Im delusional and since most gun lovers pounce on any comment they see as stupid Ive got ti assume it has some validity.

I would be curious to hear some thoughts on it



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

No need to paraphrase as its pretty much what Im saying, if you are for guns being readily available then your basically for guns being accessible to any loony who wants one. If you can go out and get a gun then so can a guy whos unbalanced and planning on shooting up their school or their office etc etc


If that's what you're saying, then I'm afraid I won't be able to discuss the topic with you any longer. You make some decent points, but then coat them in thick layer of myopia. You don't have a grasp of human nature, the balance between technology used for good & evil; firearms just like anything else are a double-edged sword. They can be used for defense, or for offense. For hunting animals in their natural environment, as opposed to buying meat that's been acquired from animals that lived a torturous existence on meat farms. They can be used to retaliate against a tyrannical regime, or defend against a foreign military force.

Sadly, you can't see past any of this. Instead, you use children as an excuse to nail your point across. How many deaths as a result of school shootings? Almost 300 since 1980. That's 300 deaths over the course of 22 years. How many dead children as a result of drone strikes, or oil/religious based invasions? You should go look up the statistics.



OK the people you know are fine, what percentage of the 100 million firearms owners can you vouch for?


What is that supposed to mean? That I should have a personal relationship/intimate knowledge of every gun owner to deduce whether or not they're peaceful?? Instead of asking me that, you should be asking yourself what percentage of that 100 million is violent/criminal/irresponsible.




Vast majority of gun deaths are criminal on criminal deaths, a small percentage involve law abiding citizens.
I think its 84% of gun victims have previous criminal records. Once again shooting civilians is not good for business


If the vast majority of gun deaths are criminal on criminal, what good would taking away the non-criminals guns do? Perhaps prevent a few extra deaths? 150,000 people die every day, yet you've felt the need to hammer anti-gun rhetoric based on the deaths of 300 children through multiple decades. Statistically & logically speaking your argument is a failure.

Also, if you think "shooting civilians is bad business" holds, then you clearly are not looking across the board. Apart from the numerous historical examples of innocent, peaceful people being oppressed; there's also many modern examples of firearms being used by tyrannical sadist & ill-formed militias. You honestly think that criminals & tyrants are going to suddenly stop trying to dominate the masses? That's about as naive as it gets.



I know conspiracies exist, I think theres one to get you all buying guns.
Removing guns would solve a big problem, kids shooting up schools!!
How many New Yorkers or even Texans are realistically in danger from any of those boogey men you mentioned? bugger all therefore they are no justification for wanting guns


What a ridiculous notion. How can there be a conspiracy to get everyone buying guns, when the majority of gun owners are non-violent, peaceful, rational, law-abiding citizens? In no way have I felt the urge to go buy firearms; not saying that I won't someday.

Yes removing guns completely (which is impossible) would stop kids from shooting up schools.... Which would be a handful of kids over the course of 22 years. So we should just remove firearms from every rational human being, and leave them in the hands of criminal organizations & [potentially] tyrannical governments. Brilliant!





You dont like firearms yet you argue in favour of them being available

Guns are easily accessible to crims BECAUSE they are easily accessible to the general public, how do you not see that

It doesnt matter if its children, teenagers, adults or the elderly way to many people get shot in the US and its because of your antiquated gun laws, FACT


Did I say that everyone should be able to buy guns without any obstacles? Walk into the supermarket and buy ARs? No. But I think outright outlawing firearms is an insane, dangerous notion. Ending your sentence with FACT doesn't make it rational. By the way, you should really work on your grammar.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I rad your solution, and it does nothing. The death penalty doesn't deter murderers, so how does the life sentence deter anything? You say that the people need to come to you, and the guns will be destroyed on the spot. How do you get the criminals to come to you?
Next, guns can now be printed on 3d printers. You can bet your ass that they will become more advanced and deadly if you ban the guns. Necessity is the mother of invention, and you can bet your ass those criminals will then make their own guns. It's not hard in an actual machine shop otherwise.
You will never rid the world of guns. it is not possible. Logistically. People will end up making them. So tell me again where the ban will keep the criminals from having them again?
Again, I asked for an actual solution. Think outside the box. I'll be here waiting.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I have noticed in events where someone goes full blown looney-tunes, they don't just flip out and run off with a gun and shoot up the first moving object they find. Instead, they seem to get involved with their mental illness. As their hatred and thirst for revenge grows, so does their plan for exacting that revenge and proving their point.

In the months leading to their massacres, they develop plans. Plans for what to wear, plans for the area targeted, the people to hit, and the method of their mayhem.

They use firearms for a few reasons. The image of a loaded gun in the hands of a stranger immediately strikes fear into most people... people who are not armed themselves.

They have so much rage and delusion built up inside, they plan to inflict as much 'payback' as possible. They buy as much ammo and as many firearms as they can.

We all know the results of someone who follows through with their plan. It is terrible and can make the most avid gun advocate consider options to further restrict gun ownership among American masses.

There should be no further gun restrictions - at all. The guns owned by our citizens are as much insurance for our communities as they are personal protection to their owners.

Removing guns will not slow down a developing lunatic. They will find a way to hurt our moms, dads, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and friends, regardless of their access to firearms.

A lunatic, who is stewing on a mass murder plan as a way to appease their tormented mind, will find a way to kill and their answer for a gun replacement would almost undoubtedly end in much more bloodshed and loss of life than seen in the gun massacres.

It can be seen at Columbine. The murderers brought home made bombs with them. If they did not have access to guns, they would have used those bombs - probably on a much larger scale.

Batman crazies, emulating the Joker, would have not quams about using precision placement of powerful explosives to inflict maximum carnage on anyone in the area.

Strategically planting powerful bombs throughout an entire school or office building, then setting them off, while they watch from the comfort of a safe location - maybe even from a computer as they flee.

These massacres are not spontaneous occurrances, the maniac plans them in detail. Their patience in planning the 'perfect' strike would allow them to stockpile a much more powerful attack, using explosives.

Either way, guns or bombs, it is sick and should not happen. I have to ask, if the shooters didn't use guns, would the number of victims sky-rocket? I think, yes.

We do not need to limit guns or the ability to own them. We need to look at the troubled kids with potential for this type of behavior. We need to watch our kids closer, pay more attention, and acknowledge that our kids might not be the angels we want to believe, as we deflect all blame away from them and on to someone else's kid.

Being blind to the fact that your kid might be a punk and the root to all the trouble they continually find themself in causes them more harm than it will ever do good.

That, I think is the first step. Realizing our kids are not perfect and then holding them accountable for the troubles. Turning a blind eye and deflecting the problems away from them is not helping them - it is ruining them.

Don't take away our last line of defence against a tyrannical government, take the blinders off and remove the silver-spoon from your kid's mouth, treat them like real people and let them be responsible for their mis-deeds...

A freak accident of a falling projectile killing a kid is purely statistical. We are all slaves to the odds when it comes to random events like that.





edit on 4-1-2013 by esteay812 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Next step, ban machine shops, and 3d printers. Can't let anyone be able to make anything. because they could also make guns.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
The last time this happened, I thought it was a freak occurrence. What are the chances, et cetera...
Such a dumb move, in any case.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rjohns1
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


The death penalty doesn't deter murderers, so how does the life sentence deter anything?


To be fair, the death penalty does deter crime, especially if enforced in a brute fashion. For example take a look at Vlad III; who although is arguably one of the most evil people to have ever lived, also vastly reduced crime in Romania. His tactics involved the most heinous torture & executions on not only thieves, but on the related families, women who entered marriage absent of virginity, and many others for a number of remotely immoral acts.

Of course that was centuries ago; but it could hold up. For example modern nations that enforce strict laws (death penalty) for drug trafficking hold lower rates of trafficking. I don't think using the threat of execution for gun owners would deter anything, because people would be so outraged they'd revolt. However if the situation tipped towards the authority having complete power to do as they like without fear of being abolished, people would become more demoralized & afraid.

Everything else in your post I agree with. The OP can't grasp basic logic & facts; instead resorts to using the deaths of a few children as a platform for attacking every responsible gun owner.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Why not use non-lethal methods for home protection...

This IS Why Not!

I knew this guy my whole life, had his dad not owned a gun, he would have been murdered too.
edit on 4-1-2013 by esteay812 because: add content



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


I completely see your point, but at the same time, most of these people kill themselves at the end of the crime. So it is no deterrent.
The knee jerk people are actually quite funny to watch. They actually think that doing the same thing over, and over and over will produce different results. More laws! We need to think of the children. On and On. But you know what, those kids went back to Sandy Hook, to the new school. And low and behold, people with scary guns guarded the school. But think of the children! Guns are dangerous! But guess what, they were there. Why, because it IS a good deterrent. They will be able to protect the kids with those guns. Hmm. Think about that.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I think I'll stick to statistics. Someone getting killed by a shark who doesn't even like water, is far more likely to die that way then to be struck by a falling bullet.



new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join